What we, the citizens, need is a dispassionate look at our
projects and programmes. We do not need the protagonists and
antagonists. We do not want that one group should push ahead with
the activity regardless and another group opposing it so that the
activity is stopped altogether. The politics of this tug-of-war
between the ''start`` wallahs and the ''stop`` wallahs is killing
this count. The industry, business and even government has been
suffering from this mindless tussle, this brand of ''labour
unionism`` which believes in scuttling productivity and
productive activities altogether. The effects of this
mindlessness are for all of us to see. Our country has to go
miles to become globally competitive.

To come back to the problems of the Narmada and other river
dam projects: there is much deforestation. Valuable lung space is
lost. Invaluable bio-diversity is lost. Loss of trees, bushes and
grass removes all holds on the soil erosion and the reservoirs
get silted quickly enough. But, this is a technical problem. Yes,
agreed that bio-diversity is very difficult to replicate. But,
soil erosion and silting of the reservoirs is a problem that can
certainly have technical solutions. Forests are felled but they
can also be built up within a reasonable time period so as to
prevent the side effects. This is not an insurmountable problem.
And certainly does not require a drastic ''solution`` of stopping
the project altogether.

There have been problems of water management  proper
water sharing, proper management of water table, proper planning
of agriculture  what to grow, when, where, how, how much.
Proper distribution of the scarce water resource, its pricing and
revenue collection and reinvestment in the maintenance and
further development are also a part of this water management.
But, does this management problem have the only solution of
halting the project? Why should every problem, every currently
unfavourable or even negative aspect of a project in the public
domain invite the demand for the closure, the killing of the
project? A difference of opinion should not lead to one party
shutting up the other. That is not the way to resolve any
differences. That is a wrong use of the democratic rights. That
is a dog kills another dog kind of a mentality. The public
interest litigations in our country have spread this perverse
version of dealing with any and every assignment/project by
asking for a ''stay`` order  a halt, complete halt. This
certainly cannot be said to be a mature reaction to any action
that is not in agreement with one`s ideas and perception.
Halting, closing, shutting up is, to say the least, not at all
the solution. It is, and it has been, in our country`s
post-independence history a disaster, a reason for our
unsatisfactory growth, a cause for our backwardness. Industries
are afraid to invest; businesses are afraid of their employees;
governments are afraid of ''activists`` asking for the stoppage
of this and that project and/or programme.

Since we are speaking about the activists, let us be clear
that this is misguided leadership on the part of the activists. A
good leader should ask ¶What can I contribute? How can I make
the project/programme reap its benefits minus its ill effects to
the extent possible?" A halt is easy to ask for. It is
easier to collect unhappy souls  souls affected negatively
by the Narmada or whatever project and make them raise a flag of
revolt. One should say: ¶This aspect is not right. It gives this
and this problem. Therefore, that aspect needs to be corrected.
It needs to be modified/replaced by this alternative
action." This kind of thinking can only come if you start
from a place in your mind that ¶just as I am okay, you are also
okay". The government, the judiciary, the polity is okay.
There is nothing seriously wrong there. All it needs is
explaining, educating, informing and convincing. Leaders should
convince and enroll the planners, the implementers, the
government into their thinking; of course, you cannot enroll the
other person unless you too are enrolled into their view.
Mutuality of understanding is essential. Confrontation will get
us nowhere.

If a particular dam reservoir project has a problem, what
should be the alternative? One should suggest. If we need more
electricity on a large scale, we need more projects  hydel
being a relatively economic source of energy. If hydel project is
a problem, can we have more of thermal projects? Are they not
polluting and environment-damaging, people-displacing and posing
health hazards?

Can we have nuclear energy, instead? It has its own
'Chernobyl` type of disasters to cite against. Can we substitute
with solar energy? But, it needs a new technology  hitherto
not developed, neither in the developed countries and certainly
not in India. There are considerable losses in our power
generation, transmission and distribution. These need to be
plugged. But, that is not the final solution to our energy needs.
Surely, the activists are not saying that we should be content
being what we are or we were, at the state of development where
everything is just natural, skimmed of most technology. The right
thing, therefore, is to sit together and find ways and means of
going ahead with pleasure for all and minimizing pain for all.

A protest, however Gandhian it may appear, is a protest, as
long as its agenda is ''stop``, ''halt``, ''demolish``. This is a
distorted way of looking at what the Mahatma preached. He was
always for transforming minds, an extended family sentiment, a
community feeling, a consensus. Satyagraha was not a pressure
tactic; it was about convincing the other person/s about the
''satya,`` the truth. It was 'agraha` - a fervent appeal/request
- not a fight.

He did not call even the then British rulers bad names; he
explained rationally and morally what was wrong, and convinced
them to his point of view. Great leaders are great enrollers, not
fighters in a boxing area trying to knock one another out.

The important point is that one should suggest alternative
action, be in positively contributing action and not just point
accusing fingers. The activists should not just carry the flags
of protests, but should carry the responsibility for finding a
better solution to the problems. It is easy to be not involved in
such constructive action and present a morally ethically superior
posture. It is easy to seize the moral high ground and keep
arguing. One may call it the ''ethical superiority of the
uninvolved``. We need ethics, but more urgently and importantly
we need positive involvement in the reconstruction of our
country.